The material facts are not in serious contest as the matter was fixed for ruling on a recusal application challenging the continued participation of the learned trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar.
There are decisions in judicial proceedings which, by their very timing and context, raise unavoidable question on due process; and the recent revocation of the bail of Omoyele Sowore, coupled with the issuance of a bench warrant, in the face of a pending recusal application, falls squarely within that category.
The settled position of the law in SOWORE v. FRN (2022) LPELR-57439(CA) is clear that as much as the court has such discretion to grant or revoke bail, it must be exercised judicially and judiciously, upon relevant materials and in accordance with due process, failing which it becomes vulnerable to the charge of arbitrariness.
The material facts are not in serious contest as the matter was fixed for ruling on a recusal application challenging the continued participation of the learned trial judge, Justice Mohammed Umar. This same Justice Umar had disrespected the Bar some weeks before now, ordering Sowore’s lawyer, my egbon, Comrade Marshal D F Abubakar , Esq., to kneel down in open court; on the said date set for the ruling of the application for recusal of Justice Umar, Sowore was present in court, but the court did not sit; thereafter, Sowore addressed a formal letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court seeking clarification on the next date even suggesting dates for my lord( one the law permits), which was reportedly minuted and transmitted to My Lord; and notwithstanding this sequence, the court proceeded to revoke bail and issue a bench warrant the following day upon the oral application made by the overzealous counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS), Akinkolu Kehinde (SAN).
